R
Roddy
Guest
pcduck said:
I won't disagree, but at the same time I also say it has no effect on the driver being responsible. If the cop was driving off a bridge.....
NTSB ban on all electronic devices in vehicles
- Thread starter NorCalHal
- Start date
I won't disagree, but at the same time I also say it has no effect on the driver being responsible. If the cop was driving off a bridge.....
R
Roddy
Guest
Another thing to think about, most (as in majority) of the people driving and texting these days are KIDS!!! Teens who have little experience driving in the first place.
R
Roddy
Guest
Hick said:
I couldn't tell you how many times my son has walked out the door, said bye and all (even me replying), then a few minutes later having me wondering where that boy is....all because I was too engrossed in responding to a comment on the forums or playing games. Imagine this same distracting factor in a car where it could be potentially deadly...
R
Roddy
Guest
As a Massachusetts OUI criminal defense attorney, I've seen studies suggesting that Jackson is wrong -- because texting while driving is actually more dangerous than driving drunk. In fact, one study, done in Britain, also found that texting while driving was more dangerous than driving under the influence of marijuana. The Royal Automobile Club Foundation, part of the British version of AAA, commissioned a study comparing the driving skills of drivers who were sending or receiving text messages; drunk; or high. Reaction times for the texters in the study dropped by 35%, while legally drunk drivers saw a 12% drop and drugged drivers saw a 21% drop. In addition, texters were a staggering 91% more likely to drift out of their lanes, as compared to 35% for the cannabis smokers.
hXXp://www.massachusettsduilawyerblog.com/2010/01/studies-show-texting-while-driving-worse-than-drunk-driving.html
Not the NTSB report I was looking for, but....
hXXp://www.massachusettsduilawyerblog.com/2010/01/studies-show-texting-while-driving-worse-than-drunk-driving.html
Not the NTSB report I was looking for, but....
R
Roddy
Guest
A road test run by Car & Driver magazine showed dramatically slower reaction times by two test drivers who tried to brake while reading and, separately, writing text messages. Previous studies on DWT have typically been run in car simulators. The magazine believes its study may be the first conducted in a real vehicle on a stretch of road. To cover different age ranges, two separate tests were set up on a road course--one with 22-year-old Jordan Brown, a Car & Driver intern, the other with the magazine's 37-year-old editor-in-chief, Eddie Alterman.
The results showed that at 35 mph, it took a sober Brown an extra 21 feet to hit the brake while reading a text message, and an extra 16 feet while typing a message.
At 70 mph, it took him 30 extra feet to jam on the brake while reading a text, and an extra 31 feet while composing.
Those figures compared with an extra 7 feet at 35 mph and an extra 15 feet at 70 mph while intoxicated. However, in his drunken condition, Brown had to be told twice which lane to drive in--a dangerous scenario if he had been in actual traffic.
At 35 mph, a sober Alterman took an extra 188 feet to step on the brake while reading a text, and an extra 90 feet while typing a message.
At 70 mph, he took an extra 129 feet to hit the brake while reading a message, and an additional 319 feet while writing one.
While intoxicated, it took him at extra 7 feet at 35 mph and an extra 15 feet at 70 mph.
“The prognosis doesn’t improve when you look at the limitations of our test,” writes Mike Austin, the author of the Car and Driver article. “We were using a straight road without any traffic, road signals, or pedestrians, and we were only looking at reaction times.”
hxxp://news.cnet.com/8301-1035_3-10272628-94.html?tag=mncol;txt
The results showed that at 35 mph, it took a sober Brown an extra 21 feet to hit the brake while reading a text message, and an extra 16 feet while typing a message.
At 70 mph, it took him 30 extra feet to jam on the brake while reading a text, and an extra 31 feet while composing.
Those figures compared with an extra 7 feet at 35 mph and an extra 15 feet at 70 mph while intoxicated. However, in his drunken condition, Brown had to be told twice which lane to drive in--a dangerous scenario if he had been in actual traffic.
At 35 mph, a sober Alterman took an extra 188 feet to step on the brake while reading a text, and an extra 90 feet while typing a message.
At 70 mph, he took an extra 129 feet to hit the brake while reading a message, and an additional 319 feet while writing one.
While intoxicated, it took him at extra 7 feet at 35 mph and an extra 15 feet at 70 mph.
“The prognosis doesn’t improve when you look at the limitations of our test,” writes Mike Austin, the author of the Car and Driver article. “We were using a straight road without any traffic, road signals, or pedestrians, and we were only looking at reaction times.”
hxxp://news.cnet.com/8301-1035_3-10272628-94.html?tag=mncol;txt
pcduck
Feed the soil, not the plant
- Joined
- Oct 1, 2008
- Messages
- 14,304
- Reaction score
- 7,288
Like I said before Roddy they already have laws on the books for this, it is called reckless op. I would imagine if you were to look at the percentages of the amount of people that use cell phones and the number of accidents it would be quite low.
And that is just ridiculous.
So you are saying that since a few cannot we should all be penalized?
Any more it seems it is always the few whiners out there that get their way while the rest of the people get their rights taken away.jmo
And that is just ridiculous.
So you are saying that since a few cannot we should all be penalized?
Any more it seems it is always the few whiners out there that get their way while the rest of the people get their rights taken away.jmo
R
Roddy
Guest
Come on duck, comparing cops to citizens is silly at best anyway.
And I'll just go back to drivers using phones and driving distracted make you a target, if you're OK with being a target for someone's irresponsible driving, go for it!!
Say duck, a few of us can drink and drive pretty well...should we then allow all???
When the whiners are victims, the ones taking note do studies proving the fact...yeah, we should pay attention and take action. If not by law, maybe we should just get the pitchforks and torches? And some goof's right to drive dangerously should NEVER take away my safety...ever.
Driving is NOT a right....not a privilege
And I'll just go back to drivers using phones and driving distracted make you a target, if you're OK with being a target for someone's irresponsible driving, go for it!!
Say duck, a few of us can drink and drive pretty well...should we then allow all???
When the whiners are victims, the ones taking note do studies proving the fact...yeah, we should pay attention and take action. If not by law, maybe we should just get the pitchforks and torches? And some goof's right to drive dangerously should NEVER take away my safety...ever.
Driving is NOT a right....not a privilege
R
Roddy
Guest
One thing I didn't copy/paste but found interesting was the fact NTSB investigators routinely check the phones of drivers in accidents. This is even citizen motorists...
pcduck
Feed the soil, not the plant
- Joined
- Oct 1, 2008
- Messages
- 14,304
- Reaction score
- 7,288
Like I said before Roddy they already have laws on the books for this, it is called reckless op. I would imagine if you were to look at the percentages of the amount of people that use cell phones and the number of accidents it would be quite low.
I am comparing the LE when they are using their cell phones for non emergency calls. Use of a hands free device is no different then talking to your passengers or telling your kids to settle down in the back seat or drinking coffee, eating or anything else that may distract you while driving.
They do not need new laws for this they already have them, just enforce them. This is just another move by the people in charge to show that they are doing something and not just sitting there and getting paid.
A sober person reaction time does not change, the change comes from the amount of time it takes a sober driver to go from the distraction back to the reaction, what ever the distraction is.
If you feel you may be a target any time you get behind the wheel then maybe you should just stay inside with your door locked.
I am comparing the LE when they are using their cell phones for non emergency calls. Use of a hands free device is no different then talking to your passengers or telling your kids to settle down in the back seat or drinking coffee, eating or anything else that may distract you while driving.
They do not need new laws for this they already have them, just enforce them. This is just another move by the people in charge to show that they are doing something and not just sitting there and getting paid.
A sober person reaction time does not change, the change comes from the amount of time it takes a sober driver to go from the distraction back to the reaction, what ever the distraction is.
If you feel you may be a target any time you get behind the wheel then maybe you should just stay inside with your door locked.
ozzydiodude
Well-Known Member
- Joined
- Aug 30, 2008
- Messages
- 9,143
- Reaction score
- 4,332
IMO 99.7% of the driver, even those "trained" drivers can't drive and chew bubble gum. THe LEO should not have those gadgets at their desposal while driving, they are working and should be watching out for criminal activities not catching up to facebook.
Hick
Git "R" lit
- Joined
- Apr 19, 2005
- Messages
- 12,839
- Reaction score
- 12,639
hxxp://miami.cbslocal.com/2011/12/13/up-a-pole-miami-cop-ok/
Miami police spokesperson Detective Willie Moreno said Brutus, a 4 year veteran, was driving when he was momentarily distracted, as he reached for a fallen pen. His patrol car left the road and headed for a utility pole, but before it struck the pole, the car rode up along a guy wire.
Miami police spokesperson Detective Willie Moreno said Brutus, a 4 year veteran, was driving when he was momentarily distracted, as he reached for a fallen pen. His patrol car left the road and headed for a utility pole, but before it struck the pole, the car rode up along a guy wire.
R
Roddy
Guest
I'm all for A BAN on ALL drivers use of cell phones....
I wonder if anyone can show me a downside to banning phone use while driving....
I wonder if anyone can show me a downside to banning phone use while driving....
R
Roddy
Guest
Hick said:
Exactly, Hick!! There are enough distractions out there already without adding in one that has no place at all in driving!
ozzydiodude
Well-Known Member
- Joined
- Aug 30, 2008
- Messages
- 9,143
- Reaction score
- 4,332
Yes too may people have to move their hands while there talking, we all rode with them and know who they are. IMO alot of the ppl with driver's lic, should not be aloud to talk period while driving. They need horse blinders on. so that they keep their eyes and mind on what they are doingpcduck said:
R
Roddy
Guest
ozzydiodude said:
This is why the laws (around here, at least) do not allow teen drivers to have passengers!
NorCalHal
Well-Known Member
- Joined
- Apr 15, 2008
- Messages
- 2,676
- Reaction score
- 3,280
What the #$@% happened to America.
Lets have the goverment dictate all we do in the name of "Safety".
Please don't cry either, as I have lost quite a few friends to idiot drivers, let me tell you. Sure, you can say "a ban would have saved them", but then again, they might have choked on a chicken bone the next day.....that's life.
I rock hands free, and have since DAY 1 when Cali passed the law banning cell phone use. To be honest, the reason I did get a hands free was simply not to get pulled over for a stupid reason like holding a cell phone....Cause I tend to ride dirty all the time. haha.
I see no reason to ban hands free sets. In fact, if anything, they should make that the one exception. Can't text on a hands free.....
Lets have the goverment dictate all we do in the name of "Safety".
Please don't cry either, as I have lost quite a few friends to idiot drivers, let me tell you. Sure, you can say "a ban would have saved them", but then again, they might have choked on a chicken bone the next day.....that's life.
I rock hands free, and have since DAY 1 when Cali passed the law banning cell phone use. To be honest, the reason I did get a hands free was simply not to get pulled over for a stupid reason like holding a cell phone....Cause I tend to ride dirty all the time. haha.
I see no reason to ban hands free sets. In fact, if anything, they should make that the one exception. Can't text on a hands free.....
R
Roddy
Guest
It is sad you need to tell people how to stay safe, Hal, I agree there!! It's sad we need laws to keep us safe too, but the lack thereof means many many more deaths and ruined lives.
Some say we don't need a new law, there's already laws for reckless driving...then why did we need drunk driving laws? Wouldn't that be reckless?? Yet I don't see many complaining about those laws which protect us from those who can't control themselves.
As far as hands free, I'm sure I could dig up a study on that as well....
Some say we don't need a new law, there's already laws for reckless driving...then why did we need drunk driving laws? Wouldn't that be reckless?? Yet I don't see many complaining about those laws which protect us from those who can't control themselves.
As far as hands free, I'm sure I could dig up a study on that as well....
Similar threads
